OPENING batsman David Warner says Australia will seek clarification from match referees over South Africa - in particular AB de Villiers - pushing the boundaries on scuffing up the ball.

“I think it comes down to the umpires warning both teams not to throw the ball into the wicket which you generally try and do. They did it better than what we did, or more obvious than what we did. At the end of the day it comes down to who can do that the best and work on the ball. We worked on the ball a lot in England and we got the ball to reverse a lot there and we got the ball reversing a little at home and this time it just didn’t work for us because the outfield was probably a little bit moist under the ground and day one it was obviously quite hard to get it to go reverse as well. That’s what happens in the game. You have to try and work out how to do that. Sometimes that happens.”

Carrot is right: we keep outbatting teams. Not bad when you consider we slump to 4 for 100-odd in most every first innings. No doubt we will soon start 0 for 200 then, from shock, get bowled out for 250.

Is bowling depth the key? While Australia has Johnson, Harris, Siddle and Lyon (and Watson) all capable of pinching poles, England only had a couple of bowlers who looked like providing the knock-out punch. Keep them out, then rally against the scrubbers. Steyn is a gun, Philander is handy, but Morkel averages 35 against Australia and the rest lack teeth.

“I truly believe that the wicket played a big role in the success that he had. He was able to extract every bit of life and uncertainty out of that wicket which, in turn, put us under an immense amount of pressure.”

It's a bit cheeky the way quotes are distilled. Nevertheless, Smurf is an oaf for complaining about the pitch after winning the toss and inviting Australia to bat; even though Clarke agreed. I wonder if Smurf's decision will haunt him like Ponting's blunder at Edgbaston.

Hard to know which way to call this series. South Africa, in South Africa, should win. But cricket is won in the bowling so it's even Stephen. Where cricket is lost for Australia, is in the dismal batting collapses. South Africa is unlikely to let Australia off the hook like England so often let Australia off the hook last Ashes. England were also putrid. Could an absent Shane Watson, and his key wicket taking ability, be the crucial omission?

Been quiet here for two reasons.

Everyone is going on about Kevin Pietersen. I have bugger all to add. People who select teams weigh up two competing characteristics: 1) is a player better than the next player in line; and 2) does the player compromise team performance? Clearly KP can perform and has more talent than the next in line, even if his recent performances, while better than his teammates, have not been special. Does he compromise team performance? Well, if you believe the England Cricket Group Unit: yes. Geelong always had issues with Gary Ablett senior, but they would not leave him out because he was too good to leave out. On recent form and with form as a troublemaker, the ECGU has decided KP is no longer too good to leave out.

The other salient issue has been the ICC, BCCI, CA, ECB brouhaha. I am in no way qualified or well placed to assess cricket's high level management, financial matters and all the other stuff relating to how cricket should be run. I leave that to the likes of Gideon Haigh, Russ, and the assorted cricket boffins. (Who, to be honest, have swamped me with their assiduous analysis.)

Alana Schetzer mixes in different circles to me. I do not know anyone who hails the underarm as a glorious day for Australian cricket:

Thirty three years on, Chappell's move is still hailed as a glorious day for Australian cricket but across the Tasman it's another story - then-Prime Minister Rob Muldoo [sic] called it "the most disgusting incident I can recall in the history of cricket".